close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Atheitist problem?

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by rustytxrx, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Just a tip: when I've told you multiple times that I in fact don't claim to know, you probably ought not to claim that I can't admit it, because I can simply point to a post where I've admitted I don't know, directly to you, and you look foolish.

    To whit: http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16266121&postcount=91

    I have been admitting, to you, that I do not know for approximately two and a half years. I have done so multiple times, in multiple different threads. Ten seconds of googling your nick, my nick, 'know' and 'religion' led me to an example. Why can't you get my answer to the question of whether or not I claim to know, or think I know, into your head?

    And if it is, as you claim, irrelevant, why do you keep harping on it? Especially since every time you claim I think I know, or 'can't admit' that I don't know, you're wrong?

    Hey, I cannot know with certainty whether or not there is a deity. <-- oops, I did it *again*.

    I cannot know whether or not there is a deity. <-- uh-oh, looks a whole lot like you're wrong, doesn't it?

    Oh, hey, another example from this very thread, which you even *quoted* in your post at http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=20214969&postcount=114 ->


    How many times to I have to say it before you will stop claiming otherwise?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2013
  2. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Well those 4 holes are all inclusive, and atheists don't have a belief system.


    If gnostic were irrelevant then obviously agnostic would have to be irrelevant also.


    Or not believe, anyway...
    quan lot nam goi cam do ngu nu cao cap may hut sua ao so mi nu thoi trang cong so cho thue trang phuc bieu dien
    This is only your opinion. I happen to agree, but if there is a god, I think it likely that there are people that know it.
     

    Last edited: May 15, 2013

  3. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    To add a fine point on this:

    This will be true if and only if that god is communicating with people in a manner that allows them to determine that it's actually the god communicating with them (and not a hallucination, or some entity pretending to be a god, etc)

    Not all potential gods meet that criteria.

    (not arguing, just adding on)
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  4. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    No. They don't know there is a god. They just believe they know there is a god.

    English
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  5. rustytxrx

    rustytxrx

    1,068
    0
    Oct 17, 2012
    Texas
    To a believer you are on thin ice here. When the threshold of believe is opened the substance of proof changes to the believer. To the person having the hallucinations during detox the spiders, snakes, etc are real.

    When the neural pathways are set up god is as real as love or hate. I know there is a God because God is all. The very fact that this conversation is possible is because ALL is the substance of God. How much more can you know God

    The atheist can not say that the believer does not know God. The only thing the atheist can say in fact is they can't proof god exists. You can't prove love or hate exists except for observations of the actions of the person in question and analysis of brain scans. Just because god exists in the human brain is a problem with the atheists but ask them if they love some one and they confess they do (usually).

    The problem here is not the existence of god but a lack of true understanding of god
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  6. rustytxrx

    rustytxrx

    1,068
    0
    Oct 17, 2012
    Texas
    God has two aspects. 1. God is all. 2. The perception of god in the human brain. You will have a very hard time proving me wrong :)
     
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Where does a middle of the road agnostic fit? Maybe at the intersection of the two lines? But it doesn't fit into either if the 4 described pigeon holes.

    Just my way of thinking, but I believe the single line is more descriptive.

    On both sides, there is faith.
     
  8. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    1. God is nothing. 2. God is an invention of man to explain the aspects of his environment he doesn't understand.

    This as of now is a fact of reality. How so? Because we know nothing of a God(s).
     
  9. Guss

    Guss

    3,948
    222
    Jul 1, 2010
    Tampa
    What is the level of knowledge of god possessed by a middle of the road agnostic?
    What is the basis for his belief level?
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    That it is roughly equal probability that a god has exited, and that none has ever existed. It's simply a mystery.
     
  11. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    Of course I am on thin ice with a believer, but that is everything to do with the fact that he is a believer and nothing to do with the real world.

    Everything you say is about the believer's perception and mental state. You even bring up the spiders and snakes many are sure are real during detox or delirium tremens. The fact that the victim believes them to be absolutely real makes no difference to the fact that they do not exist anywhere other than in the mind of the victim. You should consider the fact that your religious belief and certainty in that belief is effectively the same phenomenon. The difference in your case, and that of many believers, is that you are believing what you want to believe.

    In earlier posts you have talked of a complex mental hole of a specific shape like a hormone (an enzyme would probably be a better choice since a hormone is just a sub class of the enzymes) which you have spent years building the hormone to fit. That is a lot of effort to put into what would seem to be a kind of mental defect, but once having put in that effort you would be very hard to argue away from your belief.

    You seem to have a profound lack of understanding of the nature of knowledge and belief. To be fair, you share this lack with the enormous majority of other people and even the English language leads us into this error of understanding.

    Knowledge, where it exists, is absolute and reflects the real world or a precisely defined subset of it. Because the real world is hugely complex, our knowledge of it is necessarily incomplete. In order to interact with this complexity we develop ideas, hypotheses, theories and so on which allow us to make predictions about related phenomena. We test these predictive explanations with observable facts and when a fact is contrary to the idea we reject the idea as false. Unfortunately for knowledge, that is no more than negative knowledge. By rejecting a false idea we have reduced our mental universe of uncertainty but come no closer to positive knowledge.

    We might find very large numbers of facts, both from simple observation of the natural world and from experiment, which are consistent with the predictions coming from some particular idea, but that does not mean that the idea is true. The size of the complexity of the universe is the reason for that, because it means we can have no guarantee that someone will not find a contrary fact at some future time - later today, next week, in a hundred or a hundred thousand years.

    This means that we cannot have positive knowledge of the real universe. Regardless of this, we have to continue to interact with reality and attempt to simplify its phenomena to a predictable level. We do this with beliefs. As an idea gains more and more supporting evidence and no contrary evidence is found, our belief in the truth of the idea grows. When that belief becomes strong enough we act a though the idea is true, even though, if we understand epistemology, we know that we can have such an assurance.

    All of this applies to phenomena of the real world. But for some things we can specify a subset of what we might hope to be the real world, or might accept to be no more than an interesting fantasy, where complexity is limited to a level where it can be handled. Mathematics is an example. Here we can set the conditions so that we can not only prove ideas within that framework to be false, but also prove them to be true. In many case this has useful applications to ideas about the real world, but once we move those mathematical ideas over to the real world we take them into the realm of uncertainty once again.

    It should be clear from the paragraph above that the common usage of the terms "proof" or "prove" are fallacious. In a properly set up system of jurisprudence, the jury is asked to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that the charge is valid. It is understood that they can never prove the charge to be valid in an absolute sense because there is always the possibility that two big boys came along and did it, if they were clever enough to manipulate the evidence.

    We can be almost certain that some of the ideas we believe to be true are actually true, but we can't know which they are. It is the nature of most of mankind to believe that they know things of a positive nature. It seems to be a psychological drive of great power. We can see it in arguments about many practical things. In some of those things it is hard to gather clear evidence and so the arguments are never ending. We all can think of many examples. In others the application of a little logic or mathematics can make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that some views are false and others are most probably correct, but in spite of this the arguers will continue to support their false ideas with considerable passion. Since we are all able to observe this in our everyday lives, we should be able to agree that it is a characteristic endemic in many people. They are people who feel the need to know how the world works.

    To a greater or lesser extent, that need applies to all of us. We need to be able to anticipate and react to changing circumstances before the change occurs. We react to the expectation of winter by storing food from the productivity of summer and autumn. We used to protect ourselves from floods by building or raised ground. We used to build houses in areas prone to avalanche on places where experience had shown the avalanches went past rather than through. And so on and on. Some things are obviously harder to predict than the coming of winter and some, like earthquakes, eclipses of the Sun and meteor showers are much harder to predict.

    This leads a situation where strange, frightening or even actively dangerous natural phenomena could not be predicted by primitive people. But those people still wanted to feel that they had an explanation. This is then one basis for the creation of religion. Why is God so often angry in most religions? Religion cannot stop bad things from happening. It cannot explain their occurrence with rational explanation. So what it is driven back to in its public relations exercise is saying that it is punishment by god angry at wrong doing. If people don't remember doing wrong they must have been thinking the wrong thoughts. Fortunately their wrong doing or thinking was not bad enough or the bad things would have been even worse. This same paradigm could be seen in Communist countries such as the USSR and China.

    Once the religious system has been built on this foundation, peer pressure comes into play. When bad things happen the non- believers would tend to be killed by mobs or sacrificed by priests. The result would be that larger and larger proportions of the population would descend from those with a capacity for excessive and uncritical belief. When really exceptionally bad things happen year after year the people eventually kill the priests, but they are a small minority and make little difference to the gene pool. Some other group then arises to fill the religion shaped hole in the heads of the people.

    The result of that is that we have people like you who spend years trying to fill in the strangely shaped hole in their mental space and believing that they have gained absolute knowledge of the nature of a non existent entity in the process. Then they deny that anyone can prove their belief to be false without apparent realization that they have created or adopted a belief which is outside the realm of real world proof or even rational conjecture because it is outside the real world.

    In short, you are talking nonsense in the precise meaning of that word.

    English
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  12. rustytxrx

    rustytxrx

    1,068
    0
    Oct 17, 2012
    Texas
    YOU know nothing of God. It is not true of all. The assumption that if you don't know it is not true is very limiting for you.

    A mind that is petrified by lack of spirituality will not know many things. There are many facets of life that will not be known by such a person.

    I can say without a doubt that I understand you least of all the posters. Such a fixed mind that so aggressively drives such a narrow view is unusual. If anything you are predictable.
     
  13. rustytxrx

    rustytxrx

    1,068
    0
    Oct 17, 2012
    Texas
    @English. Wow thanks for the post. Yes I put the snakes and spiders there just for that purpose. It is necessary to understand all the possibilities before you can believe. It could be a delusion and must be weighed carefully against reality. When the possibilities are weighed that leaves us with either your view of it is nonsense or my view it is real.

    I am surprised that you used the word nonsense. That is a belittling choice of words. The ideology I used is almost straight from Buddhism. I believe that the Buddhist ideology fits reality. The "subtle impermanence " is a key to existence in Buddhism.

    I am not trying to sale anyone a bill of goods. What the world understands of my believes is of no matter to me. The pathway to where I am has indeed been a long path.

    Nonsense to you, enlightenment to me. That is a fair trade to me
     
  14. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Let's assume you are correct and there is no knowledge of a god, assuming what you mean is that there is no current evidence if one or more.

    Why not stop right there?

    Assuming that means there isn't one is a leap of faith, not much different than assuming ther is or was one.

    Granted, not all of the different assumptions that there is a god can be right either, as many are contradictory.

    The evidence does not support belief in a particular deity, nor does it support belief that there is no deity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2013
  15. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    Can this person honestly make the statement "I believe there is a god"?

    Yes = agnostic theist
    No = agnostic atheist

    What lines?


    It's 2 true/false questions with 4 possible answers.


    :rofl:
    quan lot nam sieu mong do ngu nu dep do dung cao cap cho me ao so mi cong so ban buon quan ao cac loai cho thue trang phuc hoa trang
    What does an atheist have faith in?
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  16. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    If they are wrong and there is no god, then yeah they only believe. If they are right and there is a god, specifically the god that they believe in, then it's hard to say they don't know.
    quan lot nam dep do ngu cao cap do dung cho me vay lien cong so quan ao ban buon cho thue trang phuc
    This get into the whole conversation of how do we know what we know and can anything really be known. I've always tried to avoid that conversation, because I don't lean strongly one way or the other, and couldn't back up my position if I did.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  17. Smacktard

    Smacktard

    1,368
    4
    Oct 22, 2005

    100% is infinity.


    ...
     
  18. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    I used nonsense in the meaning of not being consistent with sense if sense is used to operate within and to predict the events of the real world. Religion specifically sets itself apart from the real world with concepts like heaven, hell, reincarnation and the wheel of existence. I don't see that Buddhism is any different in this respect and so "nonsense" is descriptive rather than pejorative.

    English
     
  19. English

    English

    4,585
    42
    Dec 24, 2005
    London
    Even if they are right they cannot know that they are right in any objective sense - they would just be lucky. And so the only reasonable explanation is that they believe they know.

    I tried to cover this in my post 131. Epistemology tells us, with reason, why we can't have positive knowledge of the real world.

    English
     
  20. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    And post 131 is, colloquialized in the language of a fat kid from a small town in Colorado:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2PCcGMyTeg"]SWEET DUDE - YouTube[/ame]